From: Theresa J List, Dcs (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 22:02:34 EDT
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:49:15 EDT "Paul S. Dixon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:40:49 -0400 "Mary A. Moody"
>>>A lurker brought up in a private email, but intended for the entire
>>>list, the issue of rendering ANQRWPOS in Jn2:25 --
>>>KAI OTI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSH PERI TOU ANQRWPOU
>>>AUTOS GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi.
>>I wonder if the intended word play isn't lost if we translate using
>>non-offensive language and drop "man" - yes, human nature surely is
>>intended. But what about the tying of the "man" of the Pharisees to
>>the man of those to whem Jesus did not trust himself and the man whom
>> he knew. Person would work in each place, but sounds terribly
>> in, "Now there was a person of the Pharisees"
>>KAI OTI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSH PERI TOU ANQRWPOU
>>AUTOS GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi.
>>HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN NIKODHMOS
>This, of course, is another example of where ANQRWPOS unequivocally
>refers not to a person or mankind, but to a man. It is the only
>that will do. Somone earlier on the list made such a statement, i.e.,
>ANQRWPOS never refers only to a man, and that ANQRWPOI never refers
>to men only. There are plenty of examples to the contrary. This is
>On the other hand, are there any examples of ANQRWPOS referring to
>only a woman? Hmm. If not, then why not? Is it possible that women
>were (are) viewed as ANQRWPOI only through their male leadership.
>That, then, would amply explain the use of ANQRWPOI and would in no
>way demean womanhood. Furthermore, if we then translate ANQRWPOI
>as "persons" or "mankind," then we would lose the significance of the
>male leadership motif.
>Paul S. DIxon
Romans 5 uses ANQRWPOS in this way, namely, referring to a male head of a
whole class of people, whether refering to all humanity according to
their connection with Adam or according to their connection with Christ.
The logic of the entire passage is based on one's association (of
classification) with one of these two males.
Apart from what any of us thinks, about the matter, does the writer of
Romans consider the _masculinity_ of Adam or Christ to be pivotal or to
be incidental? He writes in verse 12, "just as through one ANQRWPOS sin
entered the world .. " Paul knew that Eve (a human being) sinned
(chronologically) before Adam (a human being) did. So does Paul make the
point that just as through one "human," Eve, sin entered the world, so
also through one "human," Jesus, forgiveness entered the world? NO. The
issue of how to translate ANQRWPOS here is settled by the referents -
_Adam_ (not Eve) and Jesus Christ. This passage attributes the first sin
to the man (male). Thus this passage assigns a male-headship / male
responsibility to one male in particular for the whole problem of sin.
Likewise then (cf verse 11, verse17) it assigns responsibility for the
purging of sin from this world to one male in particular Christ. This
indicates that the word ANQRWPOS _in this one context (!)_ refers to all
people according to their "family name" as it were ... "Adam" or
If your translation theory is to preserve the original intent as spoken
by the author, "mankind" (which is the closest English word that we have
which suggests people of both genders but is somewhat male-headship
-esque) seems to me to be the best English word to use in this context
(or any other where the main point is what "last name" people have, as it
were, "Adam" or "Christ")..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT